Diablo 3 has gone full popamole.

[shihonage]

"Quality" in terms of entertainment value, not in terms of polygon counts. Earlier Blizzard cutscenes were better directed. Starcraft 2 was pretty good though not up to par with Diablo 2 or SC/Brood War. Diablo 3's cutscenes were a complete joke.

 

[suejak]

I agree with that completely. Brood War cutscenes especially were better at the subtle parts of story-telling.

 

[Mrowak]

Your standards have changed -- nothing more and nothing less. Objectively, the only difference between the old SC cinematics and the new SC cinematics is that the new ones utilize world-class technology and the old-ones were adequate to get the job done.

Erm... no. The old ones touch upon serious themes of a (admittedly cheesy but consistent) story while remaining self-ironic (the last observation is especially true for StarCraft 1). They introduced the conflict and highlighted its finer points and they perform this function admirably.

The new ones are sensationalist insipid mawkish bullshit with explosions and colourful lighting effects for the masses.

What's self-ironic about the Starcraft 1 cinematics?

Self-ironic, as in making fun of yourself. "I love you sarge" and all that.

Anyway, yes, the Starcraft 1 cinematics are adequate, perhaps even well done. No contest there.

And that's exactly what's important as opposed to poligon counts, filters and SFX. No one cares that those old cinematis looked worse because a) they are 15+ year old cinematics - it's presumptous to require b) they got the job done far better than the new shit (TM). If you like sensationalist bullshit and explosions that's fine, but for most of us here that's just eye candy with little value if not supported by actual quality script.

 

[Zeriel]

Yeah, such approach to production also tends to mean terrible things for everything at a development studio, whether it's film or gaming. If your approach to cinematics is to throw money at the thing until its surface is a shining, beautiful shell over a hollow core of nothingness, there's a good chance the actual mechanics of your games will be the same thing: pretty, superficially attractive, but zero lasting value or meaningful gameplay.

Blizzard had a weird stage where they managed to be both visually and technically exceptional, but it really seems like they've entered the endstage of an AAA studio's life: produce things that sell a lot of copies, but don't make anyone really give a fucking shit about them.

 

[suejak]

Diablo 3 is the only disappointing thing Blizzard has produced in years.

Starcraft 2 is a genuine work of art. It is on TV. Its top players make six-figure salaries. People meet at bars across the world to watch it played live.

It's really good, and it only got better with Heart of the Swarm, the most recent expansion.

 

[Akratus]

Being a hugely popular thing, being competetive and being on tv means it's a "genuine work of art"? What the fuck is wrong with you? Blizzard is shit and was never anything but. Only the people who did the Warcraft 3 cinematics have a slight bit of self respect, and they can't possibly still be in the company. Blizzard north outclassed them by a mile, I suppose that's why they got rid of them. Anyone who plays Starcraft II, Diablo 3 or pffft, World of Warcraft (playing wow in 2013 hahaha) has low fucking standards.

 

[DraQ]

Being a hugely popular thing, being competetive and being on tv means it's a "genuine work of art"? What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[Turjan]

Contemporary = present day, not 1998. Please understand what English words mean before you use them in ways that mean something exactly the opposite of what you intend. Unless you want me to go find a review that was made yesterday, in which case let me reiterate: fuck off.

This post is a beautiful own goal.

 

[Dreaad]

Diablo 3 is the only disappointing thing Blizzard has produced in years.

Starcraft 2 is a genuine work of art. It is on TV. Its top players make six-figure salaries. People meet at bars across the world to watch it played live.

It's really good, and it only got better with Heart of the Swarm, the most recent expansion.

Lets put it this way, Blizzards goal was to make money, they succeeded. That doesn't mean it's a good product, frankly if SC2 wasn't riding on the back of SC1 and Blizzard fans it would have been forgotten within months.
There are tons of far better RTS games on the market, which actually try and add new mechanics/concepts. SC2 is pretty much a SC1 expansion with a new graphics engine.

Most of what you say really has little sense to it, for example, the Harry Potter movies were/are on TV. Its actors made six figure salaries. People meet at cinemas and in general all around the world to watch these movies... That doesn't mean they were good in any way shape or form.

 

[suejak]

Lets put it this way, Blizzards goal was to make money, they succeeded. That doesn't mean it's a good product, frankly if SC2 wasn't riding on the back of SC1 and Blizzard fans it would have been forgotten within months.
There are tons of far better RTS games on the market, which actually try and add new mechanics/concepts. SC2 is pretty much a SC1 expansion with a new graphics engine.

Am I on the right website?

 

[DraQ]

Lets put it this way, Blizzards goal was to make money, they succeeded. That doesn't mean it's a good product, frankly if SC2 wasn't riding on the back of SC1 and Blizzard fans it would have been forgotten within months.
There are tons of far better RTS games on the market, which actually try and add new mechanics/concepts. SC2 is pretty much a SC1 expansion with a new graphics engine.

Am I on the right website?

No, blizztard forums are that way.

 

[suejak]

DraQ, I swear, in your 22k posts I haven't seen one that was worth reading.

Normally, on this forum, a modern game that models itself after traditional styles is praised. SC2 is rare in its commitment to the core fundamentals of the traditional RTS. That it managed to do this and be wildly successful is a pretty commendable feat.

 

[DraQ]

DraQ, I swear, in your 22k posts I haven't seen one that was worth reading.

Good.

I would loathe it if you decided to reply to any of them and get in the way of perfectly serviceable discussion.

 

[Mrowak]

Diablo 3 is the only disappointing thing Blizzard has produced in years.

Starcraft 2 is a genuine work of art. It is on TV. Its top players make six-figure salaries. People meet at bars across the world to watch it played live.

It's really good, and it only got better with Heart of the Swarm, the most recent expansion.

Lets put it this way, Blizzards goal was to make money, they succeeded. That doesn't mean it's a good product, frankly if SC2 wasn't riding on the back of SC1 and Blizzard fans it would have been forgotten within months.
There are tons of far better RTS games on the market, which actually try and add new mechanics/concepts. SC2 is pretty much a SC1 expansion with a new graphics engine.

Most of what you say really has little sense to it, for example, the Harry Potter movies were/are on TV. Its actors made six figure salaries. People meet at cinemas and in general all around the world to watch these movies... That doesn't mean they were good in any way shape or form.

Now, now, that's going a little bit too far. The fact remains that SC2 is a largely successful RTS and a good game. That it is mind-boggingly stupid in the campaign does bog it down significantly especially in the eyes of those who do not care about multiplayer leagues and similar stuff. Godspeed to those who enjoy it, however.

I agree that what we have a real gripe with is the fact that since Diablo 2 Blizz has been aiming for the lowest common denominator... and somehow with this policy they ensured that currently it is very close to nil.

 

[Average Manatee]

Contemporary = present day, not 1998. Please understand what English words mean before you use them in ways that mean something exactly the opposite of what you intend. Unless you want me to go find a review that was made yesterday, in which case let me reiterate: fuck off.

This post is a beautiful own goal.

"Contemporary" used alone refers to the present day. "Contemporary with the release of SC1" would mean 1998. I don't make the rules English, I just follow them.

Diablo 3 is the only disappointing thing Blizzard has produced in years.

Starcraft 2 is a genuine work of art. It is on TV. Its top players make six-figure salaries. People meet at bars across the world to watch it played live.

It's really good, and it only got better with Heart of the Swarm, the most recent expansion.

Lets put it this way, Blizzards goal was to make money, they succeeded. That doesn't mean it's a good product, frankly if SC2 wasn't riding on the back of SC1 and Blizzard fans it would have been forgotten within months.
There are tons of far better RTS games on the market, which actually try and add new mechanics/concepts. SC2 is pretty much a SC1 expansion with a new graphics engine.

Most of what you say really has little sense to it, for example, the Harry Potter movies were/are on TV. Its actors made six figure salaries. People meet at cinemas and in general all around the world to watch these movies... That doesn't mean they were good in any way shape or form.

Now, now, that's going a little bit too far. The fact remains that SC2 is a largely successful RTS and a good game. That it is mind-boggingly stupid in the campaign does bog it down significantly especially in the eyes of those who do not care about multiplayer leagues and similar stuff. Godspeed to those who enjoy it, however.

I agree that what we have a real gripe with is the fact that since Diablo 2 Blizz has been aiming for the lowest common denominator... and somehow with this policy they ensured that currently it is very close to nil.

SC2 was a meh multiplayer game attached to a shittastic singleplayer game. HotS is a decent multiplayer game attached to a shittastic^2 singleplayer game. But since by releasing SC2 Blizzard directly killed off the SC1 competitive scene anyone interested in the competitive aspect of SC1 is effectively fucked, which means SC2 is nothing but a disappointment and horrible step back.

But in any case, to pretend that popularity = quality is stupidity of the highest nature. Otherwise fucking CoD is the best of all time.

 

[shihonage]

DraQ, I swear, in your 22k posts I haven't seen one that was worth reading.

Normally, on this forum, a modern game that models itself after traditional styles is praised. SC2 is rare in its commitment to the core fundamentals of the traditional RTS. That it managed to do this and be wildly successful is a pretty commendable feat.

WRONG.

On this forum, a game is praised because it has interesting/deep mechanics. It so happens that with RPGs, many such games lie in the past. This creates a false correllation with the uninformed observer, who assumes RPG Codex is some kind of cult of nostalgia freaks, instead of people seeking substance in their games.

What is true for RPGs, is not true for RTSs. Company of Heroes is much more advanced than Starcraft 2. Being attached to less interesting mechanics for the sake of nostalgia would be, indeed stupid.

That said, my personal preference would be Starcraft2, because I was never deep into RTS, and it is just the kind of thing that works for me. It is POLISHED. I passed the campaign, got owned by a couple of Battle.Net idiot-savants, and that was that. I'm aware of my own shallowness in that department.

 

[Metro]

DraQ, I swear, in your 22k posts I haven't seen one that was worth reading.

Says the guy 75% of whose posts are about Diablo 3?

 

[Zewp]

Am I on the right website?

Fuck off you goddamned viral marketer. Tell Blizzard you failed on these forums and ask them to assign you somewhere else.

 

[roll-a-die]

DraQ, I swear, in your 22k posts I haven't seen one that was worth reading.

Normally, on this forum, a modern game that models itself after traditional styles is praised. SC2 is rare in its commitment to the core fundamentals of the traditional RTS. That it managed to do this and be wildly successful is a pretty commendable feat.

WRONG.

On this forum, a game is praised because it has interesting/deep mechanics. It so happens that with RPGs, many such games lie in the past. This creates a false correllation with the uninformed observer, who assumes RPG Codex is some kind of cult of nostalgia freaks, instead of people seeking substance in their games.

What is true for RPGs, is not true for RTSs. Company of Heroes is much more advanced than Starcraft 2. Being attached to less interesting mechanics for the sake of nostalgia would be, indeed stupid.

That said, my personal preference would be Starcraft2, because I was never deep into RTS, and it is just the kind of thing that works for me. It is POLISHED. I passed the campaign, got owned by a couple of Battle.Net idiot-savants, and that was that. I'm aware of my own shallowness in that department.

Why are we talking about starcraft 2 in the RPG forums in a thread about Diablo 3?

Legitimately I'm curious.

 

[suejak]

DraQ, I swear, in your 22k posts I haven't seen one that was worth reading.

Normally, on this forum, a modern game that models itself after traditional styles is praised. SC2 is rare in its commitment to the core fundamentals of the traditional RTS. That it managed to do this and be wildly successful is a pretty commendable feat.

WRONG.

On this forum, a game is praised because it has interesting/deep mechanics. It so happens that with RPGs, many such games lie in the past. This creates a false correllation with the uninformed observer, who assumes RPG Codex is some kind of cult of nostalgia freaks, instead of people seeking substance in their games.

What is true for RPGs, is not true for RTSs. Company of Heroes is much more advanced than Starcraft 2. Being attached to less interesting mechanics for the sake of nostalgia would be, indeed stupid.

That said, my personal preference would be Starcraft2, because I was never deep into RTS, and it is just the kind of thing that works for me. It is POLISHED. I passed the campaign, got owned by a couple of Battle.Net idiot-savants, and that was that. I'm aware of my own shallowness in that department.

No way in fucking hell is Company of Heroes "much more advanced" than Starcraft 2. It's a different breed of game. It's played completely differently, and frankly, it's not as good.

The reason "traditional" RTSes are preferred by professionals is because of the freedom of expression and the skill cap for which they allow. There is so much you can do if you just have the skills. Two pros may be equally fast, equally brilliant, but they play differently because they're different people.

Yes, Blizzard RTS games are polished. They're balanced, dynamic, strategic, and demanding. They're also traditional for more reasons than just nostalgia. They're traditional because that's better.

 

[DraQ]

DraQ, I swear, in your 22k posts I haven't seen one that was worth reading.

Normally, on this forum, a modern game that models itself after traditional styles is praised. SC2 is rare in its commitment to the core fundamentals of the traditional RTS. That it managed to do this and be wildly successful is a pretty commendable feat.

WRONG.

On this forum, a game is praised because it has interesting/deep mechanics. It so happens that with RPGs, many such games lie in the past. This creates a false correllation with the uninformed observer, who assumes RPG Codex is some kind of cult of nostalgia freaks, instead of people seeking substance in their games.

Well, to be fair, we do have a lot of those as well and they are tiresome.

 

[Zeriel]

I can't fathom how someone can think Starcraft 2 is a legitimately bad game unless--oh right, people have different opinions about games, and none are particularly right.

 

[suejak]

Fuck that. Look at who's arguing with me -- I'm pretty obviously right.

 

[wergle]

Blizzard games are, in general, well-produced and slick yet unremarkable

 

[Zewp]

Remarkably mediocre.